Argument about mountain bikes goes flat

[dstepper]

Article from Rocky Mountain News

May 29, 2007

For years, land managers, hikers and others have argued that mountain bikes shouldn't be allowed on trails, and for years, a number of the region's urban trail systems have been all but off-limits to bikers.
There were a number of reasons for the calls to limit fat-tire access, including safety concerns - that bikers might hurt themselves and others - and social conflicts between bikers and people, usually hikers or equestrians, who simply didn't like to see bikes speeding past them on the trails.
But for years, the strongest argument against allowing mountain bikes on trails was that mountain bikes would accelerate environmental damage on the trails. Recently, though, we have learned that argument largely was wrong.
It has long been clear that any trail use causes some environmental degradation, including vegetation loss and changes, soil compaction and erosion, muddiness and disruption of wildlife. The effects are especially aggravated when trails are poorly constructed and located.
It was not clear, however, that mountain biking caused more damage than other recreational pursuits. Until recently, there had been little empirical study of the relative environmental impacts of mountain biking versus hiking, horseback- riding, off-road vehicles and off-trail uses such as fishing and birding. In the absence of adequate research, land and trail managers tended to err on the side of caution and banned mountain bikes from many of the trails they managed.
But last year, recreation ecologists Jeffrey Marion, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey, and Jeremy Wimpey, a doctoral candidate at Virginia Tech University, conducted an extensive review of the current scientific research on the sport's environmental impacts for Managing Mountain Biking: IMBA's Guide to Providing Great Riding, a book published by the International Mountain Bicycling Association (which I helped to edit).
The review concluded there is little evidence mountain bikes accelerate environmental problems any faster than other trail uses. In fact, mountain bikes cause no more harm to the trails environment than hikers do, and wreak far less damage than do equestrians and motorized users.
For the review, Marion and Wimpey examined more than 30 studies on mountain biking and recreational trail impacts and divided the research into four broad categories: vegetation, soil, water and wildlife.
The studies reviewed by the two ecologists found while all trail use can cause damage and changes to vegetation, impacts from bikers tend to be similar to those of hikers and generally are confined to the center of the trail.
The same was true for soil loss - mountain biking differs little from hiking in its contribution to ruts and erosion, and equestrians and motorized users have far greater effect. Any type of use on wet trails, however, causes significantly more damage than when soils are dry.
There have been no studies on the specific role mountain bikes might play in watershed degradation, but the science suggests properly designed and maintained trails should minimize trail-related water quality issues caused by all users.
And because bikers usually stay on trail, they tend to have less effect on wildlife than those who travel off-trail more frequently (such as some hikers, birders and fishermen), although bikes do travel farther and cover more ground than typical hikers and therefore have potential to disturb more wildlife.
In fact, Marion and Wimpey say, what the current research suggests is that when it comes to trails, the major issue is not the type of user, but the way the trail is built - the trail's grade, alignment angle related to the fall line, and soil type. If a trail is sustainably designed and constructed, it should be able to handle bikes, hikers and, in some cases, even horses and ATVs, without significant damage to the environment - beyond the basic potential harm caused by any human traffic in the backcountry.
As more research on the environmental effects of recreation on trails and wildlife comes in, land managers will be able to make better and more informed decisions about what type of activity is acceptable on our trails.
In the absence of a body of peer-reviewed, empirical research, however, we too often end up engaging in speculative and frustrating echo-chamber debates like those that recently have raged in Boulder, where recreation advocates and preservationists continually spar about the consequences of recreational trail use.
Everyone agrees it's important to practice good stewardship of the trails - but no one really knows what that entails. More studies and reviews of the environmental effects of recreation on trails, like the one Marion and Wimpey conducted for IMBA (imba.com), would help ground these emotional debates.

Outdoors writer Hannah Nordhaus has lived in Colorado for 12 years.

Dean

[Pain Freak]

There was an article in the Sierra Clubs newsletter about 3 years ago that agreed with this study, but it went no where. When I tried to retrieve it on line a few weeks later it had been taken off. I was going to post it on MTBR, but I didn't think of it till it was gone. You can look back and see study after study that agrees with this one. Amazing the politicians refuse to look at the data, but will listen to the Sierra Clubs propaganda.

[Chopper]

It has long been known that a rolling tire causes no more erosion than a boot or a hoof (perhaps even less) but the key word here is "rolling". As soon as that tire stops rolling and starts skidding, everything changes. That's why we need to educate our younger and newer riders about the importance of keeping that back tire rolling. It could mean the difference between having access to an area and being locked out.
Once a depression is made in the trail, water will funnel in it instead of sheeting off and the process of erosion begins. Once a rut has formed on the trail riders will avoid it by riding beside it and if they contiue to skid, another rut will eventually form, and so on. We have all see the result of this in trails like Ticketron and BFI in El Moro and many others.
Education is the key, and we can all help educate others.

"Ride It, Don't Slide It"

[L8 APEKS]

Eh.

One thing that stood out to me in that essay was the bit about "bikers possibly having a heavier negative impact on wildlife because they generally travel faster and cover more ground than hikers."

Then I think of that in relation to what happened to my favorite local trail, Whiting Ranch. If bikers have a significant impact on wildlife, then what's to be said about the development and construction and housing companies that have now encroached the trails at Whiting?

You don't even feel like you're in the wild anymore - everywhere you look, you're in someone's back yard, and from some spots on the trail, you can see peoples television sets in their living rooms.

But WE'RE the bad guys, because nobody makes money on us.

Lame.

Anyhow...rolling doesn't hurt dry trails. Skidding does, as was already mentioned. I always make a conscious effort to prevent the rear from skidding...about the only time I lock it up is if I have to change my line really quick. Even then, it's a sideways movement, not a straight line carving a groove. But having a 215-lb butt in the saddle helps keep my rear tire planted.

[tkblazer]

as a lazy guy, is there a Cliff Notes version of the document Dean posted up?

[CalEpic]

I'd be interested to know what the real impacts to wildlife are with mountain bikes vs hiking or equestrian use. I know due to the speed travelled that bikers generally cover greater distances and could potentially impact wildlife to a greater degree but I wonder since the speeds are greater and less time is spent in a specific area, if the impact is actually less?

C

[Chopper]

Originally Posted by CalEpic

I'd be interested to know what the real impacts to wildlife are with mountain bikes vs hiking or equestrian use. I know due to the speed travelled that bikers generally cover greater distances and could potentially impact wildlife to a greater degree but I wonder since the speeds are greater and less time is spent in a specific area, if the impact is actually less?

C

That is a very good point. In some situations, it is very possible that cyclists have less impact on the habitat because they tend to move though an area, rather than lingering in a area. A good example of that situation would be raptor nesting areas where most cyclists would simply pass though but others might linger to watch or photograph the birds. It is possible that this might have a more negative impact on them. I do not know of any official studies on this but it seems to make sense.

[ghixon]

We have this same running debate with the local Forest Service office here in Running Springs, Luckily, we have been able to organize a few "trail rehab" days in order to keep the local trail network open and in good repair. I must say that it has been my personal observation that the horse folk actually cause the most disruption and damage here. Not that they are doing it on purpose mind you, but they seem to leave the most "evidence" of their presence on the trail.

Most riders up here are willing to help out if they are sure that the trail system is going to remain open to MTB riders. Most of the damage that we repair from riders seem to be concentrated on switchbacks or when a water bar appears across the trail on a decent. Easy fixes for sure.

[Kid A]

And you sir have 1 minute for rubutal.

ahem (clears throat), thank you. At this time I would like to present exhibit A



Thank you I rest my f'n case!!!! (unless u want to see exhibit B? )

[allison]

Kid A - wait, is that a tire track? Oh. No, it's just a rubber soled shoe....

[Kid A]

Originally Posted by allison

Oh. No, it's just a rubber soled shoe....

must have been the two yoots

[CeeDubb]

Originally Posted by Kid A

must have been the two yoots

Oh man...I can't stop laughing.

Priceless.

[BAD_S197]

Originally Posted by Kid A

And you sir have 1 minute for rubutal.

ahem (clears throat), thank you. At this time I would like to present exhibit A



Thank you I rest my f'n case!!!! (unless u want to see exhibit B? )

Exhibit B please.....

[Abui]

Originally Posted by Pain Freak

There was an article in the Sierra Clubs newsletter about 3 years ago that agreed with this study, but it went no where. When I tried to retrieve it on line a few weeks later it had been taken off. I was going to post it on MTBR, but I didn't think of it till it was gone.

You could search the web archive (billions of pages)
Internet Archive

[ka0t1c07]

Back tire skidding is consider trail work. Gotta clear the weeds. Its not just mountain bikes that destroy the wilderness/ecosystem. Its everyone who sets foot on the trails. The horses, hikers, bikers, and motor heads. We all contribute a little to it. Why dont they just make it off limits to everyone. Then after that, youll see if they still open their mouth. We get the most blame because of the stupid ass riders who dont give a Fu*k to others (hikers and Horses) when they zoom by like they own the trail and no one is around. We have to Yield to them and everything will be ok.

-Tin